The monopoly is created by government and then given to private landowners to extract the monopoly rents.
Hey listen, you are free to believe we don't have an economy based on private ownership of production for private profits, and I am free to believe in a pink unicorn that causes the new day to happen by whistling it in. BTW, you asked me about the chained CPI and I answered you. How about following it up as you said you would?
Because the land value -- the expected net tax-funded subsidy to the landowner -- had increased 100-fold or more in the interim. In fact, the average increase in land value -- the community's gift to the landowner -- over each of the last few years has almost certainly far exceeded the $12K in property taxes. I.e., he was not close to using it as productively as others would. By which time the land will be worth at least 10-fold more again. How much less have the taxes in any one year been, as a percent of contemporaneous land value, compared to the average percent annual increase in land value, hmmmm?
OK, so just another of the same arguments that were used to justify slavery. Check. What stops them from saving enough to buy a house? Maybe the fact that they are being systematically robbed of their rightful wages, and the money given to landowners in return for nothing....? No, they only love capitalism because like me, they know that it is a lot better deal than socialism. But unlike me, they don't know that a far better deal is possible.
And the land portion of that, given to the landowner in return for nothing, was....? So, I assume you are aware that the 12K had been increased by the 2K and all your other taxes....? That you were required to pay the landowner just for permission to ACCESS the desirable services and infrastructure your taxes had already paid for....? Oh. Right. Guess not. And you actually blame the tax for that, and not the fact that you ALSO have to pay the LANDOWNER for what your taxes are buying....? ROTFL!! You want the services and infrastructure government provides, and you pay the market price for them. Government collects the taxes and uses them to provide those services and infrastructure. Sounds reasonable, doesn't it? Oh, wait a minute, who is that? You are paying HIM for permission to use the services and infrastructure? And also paying the taxes that government spends to provide the services and infrastructure? But... what is HE doing to earn the money you pay him for permission? Oh? He just owns a right to DEPRIVE you of permission? He doesn't actually contribute anything, and only takes? Who could it be? He seems to be purely a parasite. Can you guess who it is, Baff? What was the landowner doing while threatening to turn you and your stuff out into the street, Baff....? Oh, wait a minute, that's right, I forgot: nothing. But... who is it that really lives a rich life that the bailiffs will never be able to afford, hmmmm? Who is it that the bailiffs actually work for? Who is it that contributes nothing, but somehow ends up with all the money? Who, Baff? Who is it? <crickets>
<yawn> Do you or do you not understand that the owners of original artworks are all monopolists, even though people can choose which one they buy?
I'm the one giving the lessons here, and I will thank you to remember it. Watch: Irrelevant even in the unlikely event that it is true. Wrong. Hehe. You spoke too soon, pal... No you weren't. Your right to liberty had already been stripped from you before you were born, and given as private property to the privileged, especially landowners <yawn> Ever wonder why the USA retained slavery when Europe didn't? The answer is very simple: because all the good land in Europe was already privately owned, European landowners could treat their peasants like slaves without the bother of actually owning them. In 18th century America, there was so much good land available for the taking that if landowners mistreated their workers, they would just leave and take up some land of their own. In Europe, that had not been an option ever since the Enclosures. I.e. for PERMISSION to do what you would have been perfectly at liberty to do if he had not deprived you of your liberty to do it. But by what right is he privileged to withhold that permission, hmmmm? Garbage. Having the "right" to pay someone for permission to exercise your rights is not the same as actually HAVING those rights. You aren't self-sufficient. "Your" land is the proceeds of legalized theft. But you intend to make me yours...? You are not free and neither is your society. Your rights have been forcibly stripped from you and made into the private property of the privileged, especially landowners. "No one is more a slave than he who thinks himself free without being so." -- JOHANN WOLFGANG VON GOETHE
You know, I just didn't have the heart to do it to you. Even I have a conscience. I had you walking right into a hole in that thread, man. You were leashed. Every time you posted back to me in that thread, you looked a little more lost and you were helping me to prove my own point. Did you not see that? You were demonstrating just how clueless you are to economic theory, history, and monetary policy and even civics. All you were really demonstrating for us is that you're a government boot licker who wants the government to steal from actual producers at gunpoint and then redistribute it to people who claim they deserve a free ride. The last time I had a run-in with an arrogant know-nothing on here and I had to give him an education on the facts in front of all of his friends, he got embarrased and I got a warning from a mod for baiting and harrassing (lolol) when the person who thought he was so smart got his feelings hurt in front of all of his friends and went whining for a hug and a pat on the back from the mods. That's something else I have to be careful with around here. I mean I guess I can if you want. But it's gonna be in front of all of your friends and I'll most likely get another mod warning after your feelings get hurt. And they will. I learned quickly around here that feelings apparently trump the facts. And that's where I started to feel bad about it. Because you're so arrogant in your own ignorance and you really need to be made an example of, if only for the fact that you're so obtuse in your ignorance. You just have no idea what you're talking about. You have no idea what you're getting yourself into by asking me to debate economics with you. I'm likely the very last person on this board that you want to debate economics with. Really. I'm on neither side of the political football game between the red helmets and the blue helmets. As far as 'beliefs' this isn't about beliefs. It's economics 101, brother. And mixed with little history, monetary policy, and civics. And that's where you dig your own hole. You let your beliefs get in the way of truth. You let your wants get in the way of the facts. But, you know, lots of people are like that. It's almost as laughable as it is unfortunate. At the end of the day, we don't have capitalism. We have interventionism. We have a planned economy. We have a welfare state. We have inflationism. We have central economic planning by a central bank. We have a belief in deficit financing. It is so far removed from free-market capitalism that it’s foolish for people to label it as such. But that doesn't stop people like you from blaming it on capitalism when when we're so far removed from actual capitalism that it's laughable. You guys come along and say, oh capitalism is so bad. What we need is socialism. That is a problem. Because what we have right now is not capitalism. What we have right now is precisely what you're echoing. We have a socialist economy. Economic interventionism. A planned economy. A welfare state. Inflationism. Central economic planning by a central bank. A belief in deficit financing. That's what we have. Really, you should be celebrating, because that's precisely what you need to got your communist fairy tale moving quicker. Right? And you socialists come along here saying, oh capitalism is so bad, what we need is socialism, when you know fully well (well, the real socialists do anyway) that we don't have capitalism. We have a socialist monetary policy. Of course, the right wingers don't know any better either, so they come along and debate the socialists thinking they're defending capitalism, when they're doing nothing of the sort. They're defending the very socialist policy that we have now without even knowing it. A lot of em are just as rabidly statist as the rabid statists on th so left but they don't know that either. But the socialists know what they're doing, right? Ha. It's comical. Go color, Kode. You're out of your league.
Wow, where did your morality compass disappear too? Try: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/not-his-finest-hour-the-dark-side-of-winston-churchill-2118317.html
And you're blind to reality. I was playing you like a chump. The apparent doubt I showed was the lure to bait you into saying something more than what you actually know. Actually you did that all along and the above is no different. You act like you're the smart one but you're not. Your grasp of everything we've talked about is nil and now you fabricate an attack and a long BS story in hope of covering your deep ignorance of the subjects. But you're the sort of person who doesn't realize he should be embarrassed at his failings. Like Trump, you just keep up the charade. I have no use for people who can't be honest. You're now on "ignore".
Your stance certainly isn't consistent with Econ 101. That refers to the economic spectrum, from laissez faire to command economy. At no stage does it suggest that capitalism is only consistent with laissez faire. At no stage does it suggest that interventionism, which has always occurred in capitalist countries, is consistent with socialism. It is true that there are right wingers that ignorantly cry that any form of interventionism is necessarily anti-capitalism. However, that isn't based on sound application of economic concepts. It is rant with zero value.
We don't have capitalism. Anyone who has even remotely studied economic theory knows this and should really oppose today's so called 'capitalism.' Of course, we could call it crony capitalism. But it's still not capitalism. More like fascism. But even that is a consequence of our Keynesian monetary policy. That's really what we have going on. I don't even like the term capitalism. I like free-markets. But if we say free-markets and capitalism together, no, we don't have that today. As was correctly said, we have economic interventionism by the federal government. A planned economy. A welfare state. Inflationism. Central economic planning by a central bank. A belief in deficit financing. That's what we have. I'll tell you something, Reiver. I have a lot of friends on the left. Perhaps just as many as I have on the right. And I've even worked with them in one form or the other whether it be citizens initiatives or your everyday, fundamental, activism, holding signs on overpasses in states a thousanmiles away, or for educating people on certain legislation or whatever. I agree with the left on a great deal of things. I agree with them on the problems we have. I've even praised Bernie for voting with us on many occasions because he, himself, realizes many of the problems we have in the country. It's their solutions where they lose me. Their solutions almost always create more government. That just makes the same problem worse. because everything we have going on right now that's bad is a consequence of an over-reaching, big government. The solution is less government. Not more government. Everything the government touches is a failure. It's why we're 21 trillion dollars in debt and have 4 cents worth of purchasing power on the dollar. They're why education is a failure. It's why healthcare was a failure. And social security. And medicare. And every other alphabet agency that should be abolished.
There is no need to repeat your error. The abuse of the economic spectrum is a standard error by right wingers. Let's instead set you a minor task. You've stated that you're referring to Econ 101. I know you're not, but why don't you prove otherwise by referring to an Econ 101 text that repeats your stance. Dont hide now. I know you can copy and paste!
Heheh. You know, I'm going to respond to you the very same way I responded in the other thread. I going to re-repeat precisely how the monetary system works in America. And I'm going to copy paste my response from the other thread to you and your sidekick. Since the character count limits me, I'm going to have to cite myself in three or four separate responses. Again, however, you did accuse me of copypasta when I responded last time the same way I'm going to respond now. And I'm going to hold you to that claim. I recall asking you to do a google search to back up your claim. And I also remember telling you that anything you might find would lead only back to me. Natty C. Did I not? Now, you went back and deleted that comment you made, I believe. So I'm going to offer you the same deal. I'm going to copypasta from my other response, which, again, are my own words, to you here and again I'll ask you to back up your claim or say you're sorry for making a claim like that. Umkay? Ready? Lets learn America's monetary policy. And this time I'd like for you to actually address what is discussed in it instead of ignoring it. It took a long time to type that initially. Which is why I keep it around in my files. And I've been polite enough to address everyone elses points, so it's just basic courtesy to address mine. I think so anyway. Lets go...
Here's how it works. The politicians aren't running on the idea of spending less. They instead say ''vote for me because I'll make sure that the government provides you with more free stuff than my opponent say's he will.' Of course, there's no such as a free lunch. So to provide that supposed free stuff that they ran on, the politicians vote for the country to spend more than its income. We used to run on cutting spending. What happened? This is called deficit spending. To pay for that deficit spending the Treasury borrows currency by issuing a bond. So, let us learn what a bond is. A bond is an IOU. It's a piece of paper with numbers printed on it that says loan me a trillion dollars today and I promise that over a ten year period I will pay you back that trillion dollars. Plus interest. But...Treasury bonds happen to be our national debt. The Treasury then holds a bond auction. And the world's largest banks show up and compete to buy part of our national debt and make a profit on it by earning interest. As we move through this process, the big banks are there taking a cut every step of the way. This is not by chance, which I'll explain. Through a shell game called open market operations, the banks get to sell some of those bonds to the Federal Reserve, at a profit. How does the Federal Reserve pay the bonds? I'll tell you how. The Federal Reserve opens its 'checkbook' and writes bad, bogus, counterfeit checks that should bounce because they're drawn on an account that has nothing in it. They're creating 'currency''. Which is different than ''money''. I'll get to that later. Of course, when you or I write a check, the money has to be in there. Right? To steal a quote from the Boston Federal Reserve's ''Putting it Simply", they say that ''When you or I write a check, there must be sufficient funds in our account to cover the check, but when the Federal Reserve writes a check, there is no bank deposit on which that check is drawn. When the Federal Reserve writes a check, it is creating ''money.” The Federal Reserve then hands those checks to the banks and at this point ''currency'' springs into existence. The banks then take that ''currency'' and buy more bonds at the next Treasury auction. You see? Now. What is a check? A check is also an IOU. When you write a check, you're making a note that says here's my IOU for cash, all you have to do is go to the bank and pick it up. Pay attention here, please, because we're gonna come back to this later in my long-winded post to explain how this affects you and I.
Let's recap what we have thus far. The Treasury issues IOU bonds. The banks then buy those IOU bonds with ''currency.'' The Federal Reserve then writes IOU checks and hands them to the banks in exchange for the Treasury's IOU Bonds. Thus ''currency'' is created. What's really happening here is that the Federal Reserve and the Treasury are just swapping IOUs using the banks as middle men and, presto, ''currency'' magically comes into existence. This process repeats over and over and over and over and over again, enriching the banks and indebting the public by raising the national debt. The end result is that there is a build-up of bond at the Federal Reserve and 'currency' at the Treasury. This process is where all paper ''currency'' comes from. The Federal Reserve and the government incorrectly call it ''base money'' because they don't know the difference between ''money'' and ''currency.'' It's correctly called ''base currency'' because it is not ''money.'' It is ''currency.'' ''Money'' has to be a store of value and maintain its purchasing power over long periods of time.' But the base currency that is piling up as a consequence of the process which I've explained is nothing more than a receipt for a claim check on an IOU bond. So it's really nothing but a supply of numbers. So, then the Treasury now deposits the newly created ''currency'' into the various branches of the government and the politicians I mentioned in the very sentence here who were claiming they were going to give you free stuff say, 'hey thanks for that.'' Then the government does some deficit spending on public works, social programs, and, of course, wars, to include paying weapons manufacturers and contractors, along with the soldiers' pays. The government employees, contractors, and soldiers then deposit their pay in the banks. Now. When they deposit this ''currency'' into the bank, they're not actually depositing it into an account to be held safely in trust to them. Instead, you're actually loaning the bank your ''currency'' and they can do pretty much whatever they please with it to include gambling in the stock market, and loaning it out at a profit, of course. This is where the process of ''currency'' really gets cranking. This is where fractional reserve lending comes into play. Now, what does that mean? It means precisely what it says. It means that the banks reserve only a fraction of your deposit and they loan the rest out. Though rates vary, I'll use a 10% ratio here to explain the process. If you deposit 100 'dollars' into your account, the bank legally takes 90 'dollars' of it out and loans it out without telling you. The bank must hold 10 'dollars' of your deposit in reserve just in case you want some of it. These reserves are called 'vault cash.' Now, why does your bank account still say that you have 100 'dollars' if they stole 90 of it? It's because the bank left IOUs that it created called 'bank credit' in its place. That's why. To reference the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, they say that "Commercial banks create checkbook money whenever they grant a loan, simply by adding new deposit dollars in accounts on their books in exchange for a borrower's IOU." End quote. These are nothing but numbers that the banks type into their computers. And even though these 'bank credit' IOU numbers are very different from 'base currency' numbers, because they only exist in computers, they are still 'currency.' So now there is 190 dollars in existence. Created out of the 100 dollars deposited. You see? Of course, the reason people take out loans from the bank is to buy something. So the borrower takes the 90 'dollars' that the bank loaned to him from your account and he pays the seller of the item. Then the seller deposits that money into his account and his bank loans out 90% of that 'currency' and leaves 'bank credits' in its place. So now theres' 271 'dollars' in existence from the original 90. This process repeats and repeats and repeats until it's under a 10% reserve ratio and all backed by 100 'dollars' of 'vault cash." Of course, some rates of deposits are only 3%. Some are 0%. The result is the expansion of the 'currency' supply by the banks. Of course, 'currency' is not 'money.' So let us recap the second aspect of the process which I've just explained. When 'currency' is deposited into the banks, the banks get to lend it out and then it gets redeposited and lent out again, over and over and over again creating 'bank credit' all along the way. This is where the vast supply of our 'currency' comes from. In fact around 96% of all 'currency' that is created is created by the banking system. Now. At first, massive amounts of 'currency' spewing into society might sound like a fun idea. At least until you remember that the prices of every day goods and services act as a sponge on an expanding 'currency' supply. The more 'currency' we have, the more prices will rise. This is where 'inflation' comes from. The true definition of inflation is an expansion of the currency supply. Rising prices are merely the symptom. Our entire 'currency' supply is nothing but a few dollars whipped up in this scam where the Treasury and the Federal Reserve swap glorified IOUs and a bunch of numbers that the banks just type into their computers. That's it. That's our entire currency supply. It's a set of numbers. Some of them printed and most oft hem typed. There is nothing else. But...we work for some of that 'currency' supply. True wealth is your time. Which we trade away hour by hour, day by day, week by week, year by year, for numbers that somebody printed on pieces of paper and punched into bank computers. We are what gives the 'currency' its value. Here comes the bad part...which I shared earlier in the thread via the Keynesian economics explanation to your friend...who didn't watch it and pawned off some bunk graph in response. We work hard so that we can save some of that 'currency' so that we can pay the 'tax' collector in the United States known as the IRS. They then turn it over to the Treasury so that the Treasury can pay the principal plus interest on that bond that the Federal Reserve bought with a check which is drawn on an account that has nothing in it.
Let us recap the third aspect of this process which I've explained because this is where the system begins to rob the poor, middle class and seniors on a massive scale. Much of our taxes are not used on schools, roads, and public services. They're used to pay interest on bonds that the federal reserve bought with a check which was drawn on an account that has nothing in it. Here, the Federal Reserve is committing fraud. Recall that before the establishment of the Federal Reserve, there was no need for personal income tax. The Federal Reserve was created in 1913 and in that very same year, the constitution was amended to allow income tax via the 16th amendment by an unconstitutionl act of Congress. Do you really think that this was just a coincidence? The true solution is the practical view which is to to repeal it and get back to free market economy where the market tells the government what to do instead of the other way around, the statist way, where the government tells the market what to do. That's the actual 'conservative' solution. Ask yourself how much income tax you've paid over your lifetime and realize that much of it has been siphoned away by those who own the system. We'll get to them after we learn the mumbo jumbo of the 'debt ceiling' delusion. The debt ceiling delusion is based on a paradox. Meaning there was interest due on that bond, and there was interest due on every one of those loans that the banks made. That means that there is interest due on every dollar in existence. Let's ask a question. If you borrow the very first dollar in existence and you promise to pay it back plus another dollar's worth of interest, where do you get the second dollar to pay the interest? The answer is that you have to borrow that dollar into existence and promise to pay it back with interest as well. So, now there are 2 dollars in existence, but you now owe 4. And so on, and so on, and so on, and so on. It keeps happening over and over and over again. The result is that there is never enough 'currency' to pay the debt. There is always more debt in the system than there is 'currency' in existence to pay the debt. Therefore the entire system is impossible. It is finite. It will come to an end one day. Right now the dollar is 98% down from 1913. 98%. What would happen if the government stopped borrowing to do deficit spending? Are the payments on those Treasury bonds going to stop? What would happen if the public stopped borrowing and going deeper into debt? Are your house and car payments going to stop? No. They're not. There is a payment due every month on the principal plus the interest on every dollar in existence and those payments do not stop. If we stop borrowing, then no new 'currency' is created to replace the 'currency' that we used to make those payments. Whether you're making a payment on a loan or paying a tax to make a payment on a Treasury bond, the portion of the payment that goes to pay off the principal extinguishes that portion of the debt. BUT...the debt also extinguishes the 'currency.' When currency and debt meet, they destroy each other. If we just pay off the principal only, all of the loans and Treasury bonds that exist, the entire 'currency' supply vanishes. So, if we don't go deeper into debt every year, the whole thing goes into a deflationary collapse under the weight of those payments. People always talk about balancing the budget, bringing down the debt, and living within our means. But they don't understand that this is deflationary. It is impossible to do under our current monetary system without collapsing the entire economy. This is why any talk of a debt ceiling is not only ridiculous, it's delusional. The system is designed to require ever-increasing levels of debt just to continue. And that's why politicians will always kick the can down the road and raise the so-called debt ceiling over and over again until the whole system finally collapses under its own weight. In other words, they don't want it to collapse under their watch. The founding fathers of the United States knew the dangers of central banking and they fought to free themselves from this very thing. The Revolutionary War started out as a tax revolt. But now we must pay tax just to have a monetary system. Having just suffered through the hyper-inflation of the continental dollar, which was printed into oblivion to fund the Revolutionary War, they understood the dangers of a debt based monetary system. So to protect future generations from institutional theft and out of control government, they wrote in the constitution that only gold and silver can be 'money' for the simple fact that you can't print it. Personally, I don't care what it is, but we need a competing currency if we're to survive. Our current system is not only unconstitutional, but it robs us of the liberty and prosperity that our forefathers fought and died for. And we're all feeling the effects of ignoring the constitution right now. By forcing more currency into circulation our purchasing power is diluted. Inflation is a slow, insidious stealth tax that is simply the result of this debt based monetary system. This system empowers those who create the currency and receive it first because they get to spend it into circulation before it has an effect on the economy. They're stealing purchasing power from the poor, middle class, and seniors, and transferring it to the banks and the government every hour of every day of every week of every year. Because of this false monetary system. And the people at the top know it. To quote the Federal Reserve itself, ''The decrease in purchasing power incurred by holders of money due to inflation imparts gains to the issuers of money." This is a fraud. It is a pyramid scheme. It is a ponzi scheme. It is a scam. Our entire monetary policy is nothing more than a form of legalized theft.
Of course, the Federal Reserve is not Federal. It has stock holders. There is no federal agency that has stock holders. Now, what is a stock holder? A share of stock represents a share of ownership in a corporation. So, the stock holders are the owners of the corporation. Therefore, the Federal Reserve is a private corporation with owners. For reference, you may check their site. It specifically states that the stock holders receive an annual dividend of 6%. Now, we know that the stock in the Federal Reserve was originally issued to the largest banks in the United States. With mergers and acquisitions through the years, you can't actually trace who owns the stock in the Federal Reserve. That's a very closely guarded secret. The best guess would be that they are those primary dealers. The banks that get to make a profit by selling part of our national debt, those bonds, to the Federal Reserve who buys them with a check that is drawn from an account with nothing in it. Then we pay tax to pay the principal and the interest on those bonds so that the Federal Reserve can pay the banks a 6% dividend. This is purposely complex and very few understand it. And that's okay. It's why people who do understand it take the time to explain it. Our system is Keynesian. And to quote Keynes, himself, ''By this means government may secretly and unobserved, confiscate the wealth of the people, and not one man in a million will detect the theft." Presented correctly, however, anyone can understand the system regardless of the complexity of it. So. On a final note, let us recap the entire context of this communication. Step1: The politicians aren't running on the idea of spending less. They instead say ''vote for me because I'll make sure that the government provides you with more free stuff than my opponent say's he will. The government then creates glorified IOUs via Treasury Bonds. These bonds increase our national debt and put the public on the hook to pay it back. Step2: IOUs are swapped to create 'currency.' The Treasury sells the bonds to the banks. The banks then turn around and sell our national debt at a profit to the Federal Reserve, which they likely own. Again, the share holders receive annually a 6% dividend. From the Fed's own webpage. The Federal Reserve then opens its checkbook which is from an account without a penny in it and buys those IOU with their own IOW in the form of the check from an account with 0 balance.They give those checks to the banks and 'currency' is created out of thin air. Then the whole process repeats over and over and over again. This results in a build-up of bonds at the Federal Reserve and a build-up of currency at the Treasury which is really just a supply of numbers. The Treasury then deposits the numbers into the various branches of the government and then we get to step 3. Step 3: The politicians who ran on giving free stuff say, 'hey thanks for that.'' Then the government spends the numbers on promises, public works, social programs, and yes, wars. Unconstitutional, undeclared, imperialist military occupation all over the world. Then government employees soldiers, military contractors, weapons manufacturers, and everybody else deposit their pay into the banks. Then we get to step 4. Step 4: The banks multiply the numbers by magically creating more IOU through fractional reserve lending where they steal a portion of everyone's deposit and lend it out. That 'currency' gets redeposited and then a portion is stolen again. And the process repeats over andover and over again, magnifying the currency supply exponentially. Then we the people work for some of those numbers. Which brings us to step 5 where our numbers are taxed. Step 5: We pay tax to the IRS who then turns out numbers over to theTreasury so the Treasury can pay the principal plus the interest on bonds that were purchased by the Federal Reserve with a check from nothing. Then we get to step 6. The debt ceiling delusion. Step 6: The debt ceiling delusion.The system is designed to require ever-increasing levels of debt and will eventually collapse under its own weight because politicians and pundits always kick the can down the road so it doesn't happen on their watch. And finally, we get to step 7. Secret owners take their cut. Step 7: The world's largest banks own the Federal Reserve. Those banks make a profit selling our national debt to the Federal Reserve. They make a profit when the Federal Reserve pays them interest on the reserves held at the Federal Reserve, and the Federal Reserve pays them a 6% dividend on their ownership of the Federal Reserve. This system is fundamentally evil. It funnels wealth from the working population to the government and the banking sector. It is the cause of the artificial booms and busts of modern economies and it causes great disparity of wealth between the rich and the poor, middle class, and seniors. The working class. And it is only possible because we no longer use real money. We use 'currency.' Worst of all, it is a form of enslavement. Bond is the root word of bondage. Whenever a government issues a bond, it is a promise to make us pay tax in the future. I'll leave you with a great quote from a letter from George Washington, written to James Madison on the topic. He said, and correctly so, ''No generation has the right to contract debts greater than can be paid off during the course of its own existence." By stealing from prosperity from tomorrow so that we can spend it today, we enslave ourselves and future generations. This system relies in the public being ignorant to its function.
Allright, Reiver. Discuss. Do you see anything incorrect in there? Have I made any mistakes in explaining our monetary policy? I'm human, so you know, it's possible. If so, then, where? Please share with us your wisdom and correct anything which you might feel may be incorrect. Thanks! I do think that the dividends fluctuate, The 6 percent dividends are now 2 or 3 percent, but it might go up to 10 percent tomorrow. We just never know, since we have no say in it or any means of prediction since the government and the fed are runing the show instead of th free-markets. It was 6 percent a little over 12 months ago, because I did check it when I typed it at the time to make sure. And remember, we're gonna need for you to back up your other claim. Okay? Because it's not very nice to accuse people of things that just aren't true. That's not what men do. I let Kode slide because it's expected that's he's gonna want to be cockstrong even if he doesn't know what he's talking about. But, you know, such is the way of the modern youth. It's not like this is some kind of new topic. It's been had. A few times. You know? Some of us keep notes so as to avoid having to type it all over a hundred times every time somebody doesn't understand monetary policy. I am one such person since I have this discussion a lot. Haha. So, really, it's your lucky day if you think about it.
This is particularly weak. That you've been caught copying and pasting from dodgy site isn't under dispute. I have given you a simple request: refer to a Econ 101 text which supports your stance. We both know you can't as you have made the Econ 101 comment up. No credible source confuses the econpmic spectrum with political economy into capitalism and socialism. They want to be credible after all...
Show me. Show me where. Back up your claim. Do it now. A claim like that, you have to back up. That's what men do. You have Google, Bing, Yahoo, I use startpage.com, you have some other search engines. As I said, anything offered here will only lead back to me, Natty C. I promise. I think more likely, you've never been smoked by anybody who actually knows what the heck they're talking about. It stings, doesn't it? Hm? How's that feel? And, again, we all see that you've totally disregarded what I've offered here as explanation of our monetary policy. Why? You don't have anythign to say about it anymore? It's what the topic is about.
You can try churlishness if you want. It is terribly predictable mind you. I'll ask again. Refer me to just one Econ 101 text that states that the economic spectrum can be used to confirm that capitalism does not exist and that socialism does.
